{
  "id": 8552323,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL E. INMAN, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Inman",
  "decision_date": "1979-01-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7818SC902",
  "first_page": "366",
  "last_page": "370",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 N.C. App. 366"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 839",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557615
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 572",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557348
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 562",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557304
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 S.E. 2d 905",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569542
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0270-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 S.E. 2d 612",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570700
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 419,
    "char_count": 8401,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.838,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32363798043824177
    },
    "sha256": "283aa5036246a07f7db8abab3e871db827904f1435da56fefded92ef3744bb9f",
    "simhash": "1:b44a0f6032e95ebb",
    "word_count": 1431
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:00.834910+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Clark and Mitchell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL E. INMAN, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Judge.\nThe defendant\u2019s assignments of error pertain to the denial of his motions, the jury charge, and the admission of certain evidence.\nAs to the defendant\u2019s motion that Robert Preston Parrish be examined by a physician and psychiatrist before he testified, we believe we are bound by State v. Looney, 294 N.C. 1, 240 S.E. 2d 612 (1978). A similar motion was denied by the superior court in that case and the Supreme Court affirmed, saying that such a change in criminal procedure should be brought about by the Legislature and not the courts. As to the motion that the defendant be provided with a private investigator, this question has been before the Supreme Court of North Carolina in several cases. State v. Gray, 292 N.C. 270, 233 S.E. 2d 905 (1977); State v. Tatum, 291 N.C. 73, 229 S.E. 2d 562 (1976) and State v. Montgomery, 291 N.C. 91, 229 S.E. 2d 572 (1976). The rule in this state is that an investigator may be appointed by the superior court to aid an indigent defendant, but such appointment should be made with caution and only upon a clear showing that specific evidence is reasonably available and necessary for a proper defense. Mere hope or suspicision that such evidence is available will not suffice. In this case the defendant in his motion for an independent investigator alleged as follows:\n\u201cThat certain aspects of this case, upon investigation may prove invaluable to this defendant in his defense and the location of certain witnesses may also be necessary for the proper defense of this case; . . . .\u201d\nAt the hearing on this motion, it was revealed in the statements of counsel that there were two witnesses in particular that the defendant wanted. One was a third suspect in the robbery whom the police had interrogated. This man had absconded before the trial and the police were searching for him. The defendant\u2019s attorney also stated that a person had approached the defendant In-man and told him that he knew of the plan for the robbery before the robbery occurred and he knew an effort would be made to implicate the defendant in the robbery. The person who told Mr. Inman this had refused to come to court and \u201cindicated to him, if subpoenaed, he would deny or disclaim any knowledge of these facts.\u201d\nWe hold that the defendant did not make a clear showing that specific evidence was reasonably available for a proper defense so that an independent investigator could be appointed. As to the witness for whom the police were searching, we cannot see how he would be reasonably available to a private investigator if the police could not find him. As to the witness who had talked to defendant, he was subject to subpoena. We cannot see how a private investigator could have helped to get him to court or to testify.\nThe defendant\u2019s motion that Judge Long recuse himself was made on the ground that he had presided over a trial in 1973 at which the defendant was convicted of breaking or entering and a sentence of from four to eight years was imposed. Judge Long had no recollection of the previous trial. We hold he did not abuse his discretion by refusing to recuse himself.\nThe defendant has also assigned error in regard to the charge. He contends first that the court did not recapitulate the testimony of his only witness as to the defendant\u2019s alibi. The defendant offered one witness, Larry Pruitt, who testified he knew defendant and Robert Parrish as well as some others. The main thrust of Mr. Pruitt\u2019s testimony was that someone was trying to falsely inculpate defendant in the robbery. We can find no testimony from Mr. Pruitt that defendant was somewhere else at the time of the crime. There was no testimony of Mr. Pruitt as to alibi which the court could recapitulate. The defendant also contends the court did not put equal stress on the contentions of the State and defendant. The defendant did not object at the trial to the court\u2019s statement of the contentions. Any objection to the court\u2019s statement of defendant\u2019s contentions is deemed waived by his failure to object. State v. Gaines, 283 N.C. 33, 194 S.E. 2d 839 (1973). We have read the court\u2019s charge nevertheless and it appears to us the court fairly stated the defendant\u2019s contentions and properly applied the law as to alibi.\nThe defendant\u2019s last assignment of error deals with the testimony of Allen G. Travis, a detective in the City of Greensboro Police Department. It is difficult to deal with this assignment of error. There is no objection to it in the narrative of Mr. Parrish\u2019s testimony as it appears in the record. The record contains a statement from the judge that during the testimony of Robert Parrish, the defendant\u2019s counsel approached the bench and objected to the testimony of Travis \u201cthat Robert Parrish had corrected his statement after it had been written as it may have related to who told him the money was at the Johnson residence.\u201d This, objection was overruled. We hold the testimony of Mr. Travis as to what Robert Parrish told him was properly admitted as evidence in corroboration of the testimony of Robert Parrish. 1 Stansbury, N.C. Evidence (Brandis Rev. 1973), \u00a7 51, p. 146.\nNo error.\nJudges Clark and Mitchell concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Sandra M. King, for the State.",
      "Lee and Johnson, by Michael M. Lee and Charles R. Coleman, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL E. INMAN, JR.\nNo. 7818SC902\n(Filed 2 January 1979)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.7; Witnesses \u00a7 1\u2014 physical and psychiatric examination of witness \u2014 refusal proper\nDefendant was not entitled to have his codefendant, who was to testify for the State, examined by a physician and psychiatrist before he testified.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 31\u2014 indigent defendant \u2014appointment of investigator denied\nA private investigator may be appointed by the superior court to aid an indigent defendant, but such appointment should be made with caution and only upon a clear showing that specific evidence is reasonably available and necessary for a proper defense; defendant failed to show the necessity for an investigator in this case where he alleged that two witnesses could offer evidence in his behalf if they could be located by the investigator, but one was being sought by police and the other was subject to subpoena, and there was no showing how the investigator could have been of any help.\n3. Judges \u00a7 5\u2014 recusal properly denied\nThe trial judge did not err in denying defendant's motion that he recuse himself on the ground that the judge had presided over a trial in 1973 at which defendant was convicted of breaking or entering, since the judge had no recollection of the previous trial.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 112.7\u2014 recapitulation of testimony \u2014no evidence of alibi \u2014 no instruction required\nDefendant\u2019s contention that the trial court erred in failing to recapitulate the testimony of his only witness as to defendant\u2019s alibi is without merit where there was no testimony from the witness that defendant was somewhere else at the time of the crime.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 118.1\u2014 instructions on contentions \u2014 failure to object at trial\nDefendant\u2019s contention that the court erred by failing to put equal stress on the contentions of the State and those of defendant is without merit where defendant did not object at the trial to the court\u2019s statement of the contentions.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Long, Judge. Judgment entered 6 April 1978 in Superior Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals at Winston-Salem on 6 December 1978.\nThe defendant appeals from a sentence imposed after he was convicted of armed robbery. Prior to the trial, the defendant made the following motions: (1) that the State provide an independent investigator for the defendant, (2) that Robert Preston Parrish, a co-defendant who was to testify for the State, be examined by a physician and a psychiatrist not under the direct control of the State of North Carolina, and (3) that Judge Long recuse himself. All three motions were denied.\nThe State offered evidence, including the testimony of Robert Parrish, that the defendant and Robert Parrish robbed William L. Johnson, a ninety-year-old man of approximately $4,000.00 by holding a knife at his throat and taking the mone'y from his pocket. William L. Johnson was not able to identify either of the two people who he testified robbed him. The defendant was sentenced to 28 to 30 years in prison.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Sandra M. King, for the State.\nLee and Johnson, by Michael M. Lee and Charles R. Coleman, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0366-01",
  "first_page_order": 394,
  "last_page_order": 398
}